Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47547887 <comment><USER4> The current BBC headline is "Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes", which is a better summary of the situation.

For a variety of reasons (legal, procedural, and political) MPs can't simply resolve to reject Brexit, and didn't do so today. What they can do is reject the exit deal that May has negotiated.

Some of them have voted to do this because they want a 'softer' Brexit with a closer ongoing relationship with the EU, or no Brexit at all. Others because they think the deal is insufficiently 'hard', as it envisages some kind of ongoing relationship and they'd rather see a clean break and then deal with the consequences.

The upshot is that we leave at the end of the month with no deal unless something happens, there's currently no majority in Parliament for _any_ of the options, and we look like international idiots.

<comment><USER5> Do you personally think that the UK will actually end up leaving the EU in 10 days? If yes, what are the chances of that happening?

<comment><USER4> I hope not; in addition to negotiating an exit deal, there's also a stack of legislative changes that need to be made before exit (deal or otherwise) which are stacked up and waiting. It's nearly impossible to see how that can be done even partially adequately at this point, so any exit would very likely be (1) with no deal (May's won't fly and there's no chance of negotiating another one this month) and (2) totally ill-prepared.

My guess is an overwhelming (but utterly non-binding) rejection of 'no deal' by Parliament tomorrow, followed by a large majority on Thursday asking for a short-term extension of Article 50 to try to sort something out, followed by the EU saying "a year or nothing", followed by public disagreements, followed by an agreement for an extension of between two months and a year. Nobody actually wants a chaotic exit except a few financiers, and we're doing enough damage to ourselves that I doubt the EU wants to enforce a punishment beating at a cost to their own member states' economies.

As for the final outcome, I'd guess:

* No deal (10%)

* May's deal (10%)

* New (softer) deal (40%)

* Second referendum (40%), with any option possible after that from no Brexit at all to the public saying 'sod you all' and demanding a no deal exit.

But anything's possible at this point; we're off the map and predictions on the process I was much more confident on have already been wrong.

<comment><USER6> Is a second referendum really that likely? I feel like the way they're treating it it's a 5% likelihood.

<comment><USER7> What option do you think is more likely?

Any leave option has the Irish border question to sort (unless we remain in the customs union I suppose), which is pretty intractable, and already causing low-level violence to start up again in Ireland from what I hear.

And surely we won't choose to stay without a referendum.

<comment><USER6> I don't keep up with British politics much so this is me just taking wild guesses from nowhere but I feel like either they'll delay the exit or they'll exit without a deal. If there is another referendum I just can't see it happening the March 29 deadline.

<comment><USER7> I think a postponement is pretty likely at this point.

<comment><USER8> Postponement doesn't solve any problems. The Irish border issue will remain intractable.

And not leaving after all won't happen either, British pride and dreams of Empire can't handle that humiliation.

My money is on the no deal exit, even though that implies the hard border to Ireland.

<comment><USER7> > _Postponement doesn 't solve any problems._

It does solve one problem: that otherwise we crash out with no deal by default.

> _And not leaving after all won 't happen either, British pride and dreams of > Empire can't handle that humiliation._

That's not the only force in Britain though. Plenty of people, especially young people, see themselves as European as much as British. And plenty of people are ashamed of the empire too.

> _My money is on the no deal exit, even though that implies the hard border > to Ireland._

It could happen, but I don't think anybody is keen to see a resurgence in Irish terrorism, which is not unlikely in a No Deal scenario. And this is even ignoring the significant downsides this would have for the British economy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think this just goes to show that maybe the entire Brexit option was not a good one. I mean, why would Theresa May not try and get a good deal - she is trying her level best, powering through defeat after defeat in the house! One could conclude that, perhaps, there just isn't a good deal to be had. Brexiteers seem to have this "it'll be alright on the night" attitude - as if they want to leave without weighing up the pros and cons of both sides - <USER2> staunchness confuses me and reminds me of this Charles Bukowski quote:

"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence."

I can see this going to another referendum soon. May even trigger a general election. Fun times!

Edit: there is an overwhelming belief amongst Brexiteers that a second referendum would be undemocratic. But how can it be? It represents the most up to date public opinion. If they're so confident that it's what the people want, why will it make a difference? If anything, it'll just help quell any uncertainty. What is truly undemocratic is manipulation of the electorate. Manipulation happened on a large scale during the referendum, and there is a fair bit of proof to back up this claim, including blatant lies, social media and other advertising campaigns.

<comment><USER10> > _I mean, why would Theresa May not try and get a good deal_

May has two contradictory goals. She doesn't want to _really_ leave the EU - <USER3> think absolutely everything about her staff picks, negotiating non-strategy and Cabinet management supports that - but she's a genuine Tory loyalist who needs to maintain enough of a fig-leaf of Leaving that her party doesn't get utterly obliterated by irate voters at the next election. That's a tough needle to thread, and she's completely failed to thread it. She's achieved her first goal by abandoning her second.

> _as if they want to leave without weighing up the pros and cons of both > sides - their staunchness confuses me_

I don't think "staunchness" is quite the word. They want to leave, and they don't see the WA as leaving. (Nor does the general population; I think the last poll showed only 12% thought the WA respected the referendum result.) The talking point being pushed hard by No 10 has been "don't make the perfect the enemy of the good", implying that the ERG etc are blocking the WA because they think, unrealistically, that they can get a harder exit by holding out. That may be true for some. But I think many genuinely do believe that the WA (effectively non-voting membership with no safeguards and no way out) is worse than staying in the EU (as a voting member with the option of going Article 50 again). Many have said so. Some observers may dismiss that as rhetorical, but I don't think it is.

<comment><USER9> Sorry, for my ignorance - what does WA stand for?

Edit: worked it out - Withdrawal agreement

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > MPs voted down her deal by 391 to 242 - a smaller defeat than when they > rejected it in January.

> The PM said MPs will now get a vote on whether the UK should leave without a > deal on 29 March and, if that fails, on whether Brexit should be delayed.

What happens if they vote "No" three times in a row (no deal, no _no-deal_ , no postponement)?

If this wasn't politics I'd say: See if you can simplify this function, bonus points if you can avoid error conditions too:

        func brexit(){
           if(deal){
                exit(deal);
            } else {
                if(!deal) {
                    exit(null);
                } else {
                    if(postpone){
                        wait(TIME);
                        brexit();
                    } else {
                       throw new handsInTheAir();
                    }
                }
            }
        }

<comment><USER12> There actually is a similar flowchart in a linked article. [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/08/the- brexit-...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/08/the-brexit-state- of-play-a-guide-to-next-weeks-crucial-votes)

<comment><USER12>
      void choices()
      {
        if(uk_MPs_yes_vote(12_march))
        {
          brexit(29_march[current_deal]);
        }
        else if(uk_MPs_yes_vote(13_march))
        {
          brexit(29_march[no_deal]);
        }
        else if(uk_MPs_yes_vote(14_march))
        {
          if(EU_yes_vote(21_march))
          {
            brexit(extension_date);
          }
        }
        else if(uk_MPs_yes_vote(22_to_29_march))
        {
          brexit(29_march[current_deal]);
        }
        else
        {
          brexit(1/0);
        }
      }

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Timeline for the next days is at [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/08/the- brexit-...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/08/the-brexit-state- of-play-a-guide-to-next-weeks-crucial-votes)

</comment><comment><USER14> I've said this before so I'll ask this again- I'm an American and I'm entirely ignorant on UK politics. I've followed the headlines and I am still confused why Brexit is happening. It seems no one wants Brexit as it has been suggested by the political leadership of UK, and the majority want to avoid no deal at all.

I do not understand why not call the entire Brexit thing off; why is that political suicide?

<comment><USER15> Well, it's a democracy, they let the people vote, and the people voted in favor of leaving the EU.

It's the same for me as a non-American looking at the whole Trump situation. The people chose him as their president, yet I get the impression (again, I'm an outsider) that very few people like him as a president.

<comment><USER16> he lost the popular vote but thanks to the Electoral College won the presidency

<comment><USER17> Because, of course, he campaigned to the Electoral College (put advertising effort where the most Electoral College votes could be leveraged). Why the Democrats didn't do this is appalling.

<comment><USER18> > Because, of course, he campaigned to the Electoral College

Regardless of the validity of this argument as to _Constitutional_ legitimacy, it's inapplicable to th claim made upthread which is that "the people chose him as their President". They did not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm a bit confused as to why politicians always bring up 'ignoring the will of the people' when it's been shown that 'the people' have been lied to on a grand scale and there is evidence that Cambridge Analytica had worked pro- Brexit.

I guess nowadays you cannot convince people with facts anymore. You can only convince them with covert, subliminal ads on their social media feeds.

<comment><USER20> As recently as one year ago [1], polls indicated that sentiment in favour of Brexit was still strong enough that another referendum might have resulted in another "leave" vote. A more recent poll [2] shows that this is now much less likely, but there's still strong support among a huge portion of the population.

As much as I agree that the Brexit leave campaign was fraudulent and the whole referendum tainted, I don't think it's as clear-cut as you want. At what point do decide a vote that was made through a legal process should be rejected? You can't run the "will of the people" through some kind of legitimacy filter to weed out the ones that have been unduly influenced by political forces.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng- interactive/2018/jan...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng- interactive/2018/jan/26/guardian-icm-brexit-poll-full-results)

[2] [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to- st...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-stay-in-eu- want-second-referendum---poll.html)

<comment><USER19> > At what point do decide a vote that was made through a legal process should > be rejected?

When it's fundamental premises are shown to be fraudulent. As you said.

Also, don't ignore the fact that the wording of the vote had a big impact. It was `remain` vs. `literally everything else with the only constraint being "not in the EU"`.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why do politicians always seem so uncivilized to me?

Both sides of an argument always argue as if they believe the other side is stupid and they know for sure they are right.

That is the biggest stupidity in itself.

Why are there no politicians that spend their time on trying to understand the other side, rather then shouting out their own message? Those would be the ones I would vote. But they simply do not exist.

<comment><USER22> How would you know that one party understands the other side?

Because they went silent? How would you know one party understands the other side, and continues to talk about their own politics anyway? That would again seem like they are just talking and not understanding each other.

<comment><USER23> You'd know because they can explain the other side's position in terms that the other side recognizes as accurate, rather than a strawman - and then explain what they believe is mistaken about it.

If you're really right, you shouldn't have to strawman your opponent's position in order to show that you're right.

<comment><USER22> > You'd know because they can explain the other side's position in terms that > the other side recognizes as accurate,

If one side does that, by the public they will be perceived to be talking the points of the other side, again losing out.

The whole point of politics, religion and marketing is to keep talking until the other side gives up. The biggest loudest mouth wins. Not the most understanding one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You have to admire May for being stubborn. I'd have thrown up my hands and said 'OK, you figure it out then. Have fun!'

<comment><USER24> Yeah, but she did nominate herself for the job after the vote.

Still, better than Cameron.

<comment><USER5> I wonder why though, since she voted to stay..? I wouldn't be that excited about carrying out my competitor's plans (unless of course I wanted to sabotage them, which sometimes I wonder if she wanted to do).

<comment><USER24> I've nominated myself for work stuff I really didn't agree with in the past, it was because I thought I could help said stuff not be a total disaster.

Leading a country through brexit is a hell of a sword to fall on though. :/

<comment><USER5> I see.

Makes sense I guess :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I followed the Commons debates during both votes. It's just surreal. It's as if the UK was living in some kind of bubble where just about anything happening outside of it had no existence let alone importance whatsoever. If I were a UK voter I'd be extremely angry.

As an EU citizen I sincerely hope the outcome will be the UK ultimately staying in -- if only because of the outright lies during the referendum and the suspicion of Russian influence in the Leave vote.

On a positive note, May mentioned a People's Vote was an option tonight. Insofar as I'm aware that's a first.

<comment><USER26> > As an EU citizen I sincerely hope the outcome will be the UK ultimately > staying in -- if only because of the outright lies during the referendum and > the suspicion of Russian influence in the Leave vote.

What if i told you that crying "b-but the other side lied!" and talking about "russian hackers" do not outweigh a fair, free, democratically held vote? Imagine the vote was vice versa and the right-wing would be crying about unfair campaign ads and Brussel influence, not one person would take them seriously.

<comment><USER25> > do not outweigh a fair, free, democratically held election

In case it needs reminding, those elections did occur, and May ended up needing to go in bed with the DUP to stay in power.

Edit: ok, I see what you've done with your edit...

> Imagine the vote was vice versa and the right-wing would be crying about > unfair campaign ads and Brussel influence, not one person would take them > seriously.

Everyone would have correctly raised that it's horse shit, because the EC is fairly transparent in what it does if you bother to take a look.

The real wtf in recent decades has been that Brussels is a perfect scapegoat: as a national politician you can go to the European Council and promote what have you; EC and EP pick it up and deliver; and then you can turn around and tell voters "see it's Brussel's fault" because national newspapers aren't reporting enough on what's going on in the EU.

And just to be clear, this is nothing new. It already was a problem 20 years ago. And insofar as I've been made aware by the law teachers I had back then, 40 years ago as well.

<comment><USER26> *vote, not election, pardon

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The Brexit vote happened to precede a period of sustained global growth, mostly throughout the year 2017, which overshadowed its economic implications. Despite that, UK GDP growth lagged behind other developed countries but it was not enough for the UK citizens opinion to change.

As soon as it starts biting people's pockets, which might happen pretty soon according to Central banks/IMF economic forecasts, I believe a new referendum will be called and the decision will be reversed.

There might not be time for that to happen though.

</comment><comment><USER28> No deal looks increasingly on the table, what I fear most is it forces another general election that brings a party like ukip back to the fore. It is in both parties interests to vote for a deal, but their selfish bickering has already seen a fracture in labour and you could see more splitters and divided coalition parties building an alliance with ukip to get a majority

<comment><USER29> It is in both parties interest to uphold the result of the referendum which was held in 2016, and which they pledged to implement in their election manifestos in 2017, because if new general election comes about, their constituents will remember their betrayal, and then it will be no surprise they will vote for somebody else.

May's deal is not what the people voted for, and so, the house of commons is full of lying politicians who will have exhausted their careers on the gamble that they could stop Brexit from happening.

<comment><USER18> > It is in both parties interest to uphold the result of the referendum which > was held in 2016, and which they pledged to implement in their election > manifestos in 2017, because if new general election comes about, their > constituents will remember their betrayal

If their constituents viewpoints have moved since 2016/2017, they won't view it as a betrayal; more precisely the concern is that each major party is concerned that their own Leave faction will be more likely to abandon them than Remain-leaning voters outside will be to come over if their party is the one that flips.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I liked the Jon Snow exchange on twitter

Jon Snow (British journalist): "A Lawyer contact tells me that the legal world is aware that the Attorney General said NO last night to the validity of Mrs May's 'new EU deal'...he been told to go away and find a way to say YES: A cohort of lawyers has been summoned"

Attorney General: "Bollocks"

<comment><USER23> "You know nothing, John Snow."

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Oh wow, if we vote NO two more times this.. could all be over? Ia this real? Could it truly finally end?

</comment><comment><USER5> I've had the feeling that the UK won't actually leave the EU for a while, now.

Does it look like that feeling is going to turn to be right, or we just don't know..?

<comment><USER30> Well there seems to be a majority of MPs against no deal, theres a vote on that tomorrow. So that would mean May going back to the EU to ask for an extension. That would seem most likely to be until May, before the EU elections. I can't see that being more than a temporary date though. Any other option has to take more time than 2 ish months.

That's where my crystal ball goes cloudy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> It's getting closer and closer to a no-deal, and yet the pound doesn't really go down. Does anybody understand why?

<comment><USER33> I think the consensus is they will just extend instead of actually going through a 100% no-deal Brexit. Seems like a fairly safe bet given the UK can do it unilaterally and how bad it would be.

<comment><USER34> Why would the EU allow the UK to extend this one-foot-in-one-foot out nonsense? It's not clear that any deal it is willing to offer will get parliamentary assent.

<comment><USER30> Because European courts have decided that Article 50 can be unilaterally retracted.

<comment><USER35> I was under the impression that it can be only unilaterally "retracted" (i.e., cancel brexit), but extending the negotiation required EU's agreement, which already stated that they wouldn't unless there's a concrete plan?

<comment><USER30> Yes. In practice the UK would have to ask the EU for an extension, or article 50 could be retracted and resubmitted, achieving the same thing. There would be political barriers to doing that so the EU does have some bargaining power.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I wonder how many currency speculators have just revised their positions against the pound.</comment>


Updates to form controls and focus - <AUTHOR> https://blog.chromium.org/2020/03/updates-to-form-controls-and-focus.html <comment><USER2> It is unfortunate that the design of these controls give you no clues whatsoever as to how to interact with them -- or whether you can interact with them at all. Compare this to NeXTSTEP from the late 1980s: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP#/media/File:NeXTSTEP_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP#/media/File:NeXTSTEP_desktop.png)

Flat is broken [1], Flat 2.0 is much better [2].

[1] [https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-ui-less-attention- caus...](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-ui-less-attention-cause- uncertainty/)

[2] [https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat- design/](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-design/)

<comment><USER3> Isn't there a trade-off though between always knowing what a button does on the first guess and having to misclick once or twice but then having a clean UI forever? I prefer the latter.

<comment><USER2> The notion that removing all shades and shadows is "cleaner" is a fad. This fad will end, and the sooner it ends the better it is for all of us.

Windows 1.0 doesn't have shades and shadows. It is "cleaner" in that sense than NeXTSTEP. But few will argue that it is more beautiful.

Here's Windows 1.0: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0#/media/File:Window...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0#/media/File:Windows1.0.png)

<comment><USER4> I really don't understand why that adjective is so commonly used to presumably denote something positive. To me, "cleaner" evokes images of emptiness, like a house you've just built and haven't started to actually use. The cleanest room has nothing in it. I think that's precisely the opposite of what you want.

<comment><USER5> Have you ever shopped for closets? Every major closet retailer has pictures of their product holding a ridiculously small number of apparel.[1][2] I, and especially my wife, have more than 4 shirts. I would like to see how a closet design looks when full. Sure the nearly empty closet looks cleaner, but it does not represent my use case, or that of anyone I know.

The same could be said for architectural renderings showing a handful of visitors at a place designed to be crowded.

[1] [https://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/pax-corner- wardro...](https://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/pax-corner- wardrobe__0608667_PE683971_S5.JPG?f=xxxl)

[2] [https://www.closetsbydesign.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/02/C...](https://www.closetsbydesign.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/02/ClosetWI_AntiqueWhite_CBD1.jpg)

<comment><USER6> > Have you ever shopped for closets? Every major closet retailer has pictures > of their product holding a ridiculously small number of apparel.[1][2] I, > and especially my wife, have more than 4 shirts. I would like to see how a > closet design looks when full. Sure the nearly empty closet looks cleaner, > but it does not represent my use case, or that of anyone I know.

Ok. That explains it. So the new UI's (or UX's) are like closets waiting to be used. You just have to add a pipe (you need to figure out where because real programmers don't ...) and a closet seat lid and it's ready for use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The problem that I fear is that most of this work will go to waste since it is difficult to apply your own custom styles to the default experience for most input types. Instead of having to reinvent a date picker for every project I would love to be able to use the built in types, but they are usually too inflexible or have made suboptimal aesthetic choices. Is it too much to ask to be able to style a <select>, increase the size of the date picker, or to add animated stripes to a progress meter? I want it to be easy to make the web both beautiful and accessible but am glad for the slow and steady progress.

<comment><USER8> I understand how that could be frustrating, but as a user I find styled form elements pretty annoying.

I would love to have control for myself (i.e. be able to customize Chromium's built-in date picker that gets used everywhere), and limit (or prevent) sites from customizing it themselves. I feel like I have a better understanding of what's usable for myself than an arbitrary web dev.

But I also feel it's wishful thinking. Maybe Opera would have done something like that back in the day when they made their own browser, but I'm not hopeful it'll get into Chrome or Firefox any time soon.

<comment><USER9> css was designed for that exact use case. your user styles can override the developer's (and the browser's) styles on a per-site basis.

so what the parent wishes for is what you should be wishing for too (that is, to be able to style all form controls).

<comment><USER10> > your user styles can override the developer's (and the browser's) styles on > a per-site basis.

Too bad Mac Safari is the only browser of significance that still has an interface to load a user style sheet.

Yes, other browsers have extensions for using them including separate ones for separate sites but how many people really want to create and manage those, especially on mobile?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's ironic to me after being universally panned for years with their own browsers, Microsoft is making such leaps and bounds of improvement to Google's browser, to the point that even Google wants to bring it back upstream.

<comment><USER12> I always get a kick out of how modern design has decided to finally coalesced on a hybrid of Watercolor XP and Encarta 2000. Microsoft could have just stick with that and saved 2 decades of redesigns, but then XP/OSX came out with everything covered in shiny plastic. Oh Luna/Aqua how you set us back. The lost decades.

[http://www.intelliadmin.com/index.php/2007/04/forgotten- wind...](http://www.intelliadmin.com/index.php/2007/04/forgotten-windows-xp- theme-watercolor/)

[http://www.shoplack.com/detail.aspx?id=1305](http://www.shoplack.com/detail.aspx?id=1305)

<comment><USER13> It really is remarkable how far ahead of it's time Watercolor really was, and then they just killed it.

<comment><USER14> In an alternate timeline, they used watercolor and now XP-style guis are in fashion.

<comment><USER12> If they had a consistent gray/white/tan everywhere, and modern icons, it would look en vogue today.

[https://www.deviantart.com/rainingskies/art/Windows- Whistler...](https://www.deviantart.com/rainingskies/art/Windows-Whistler- Build-2296-106558116)

Imagine that with these, something they absolutely could have accomplished at the time. [https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/20/21146028/microsoft- window...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/20/21146028/microsoft- windows-10-new-icons-colorful-design-changes-updates-fluent-design-system)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The accessibility improvements are very good news of course, but the visual redesign looks extremely amateurish and lacking in 'depth' compared to what was there before. It reminds me of GUI applications in the late 1980s, which had to cope with very limited color support. We can do a lot better nowadays!

<comment><USER16> ^ it seriously looks they don't have a designer on this project and the end result is programmer art

<comment><USER4> In my experience, "programmer art" is more usable and utilitarian, and it's "designer art" that looks "clean" but isn't very usable (as others here have already noted.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think this is great news!

A couple particularly welcome adjustments are the more visible focus indicator, and keyboard-friendly color picker. I'm glad they accomplished the touch improvements without making any of the controls bigger (at least not in their inactive, "collapsed" state).

My only nitpick is the coloring dissonance between "input" controls; some are black (text fields, dropdowns, buttons, etc.) while others are blue (checkmark, radio button, slider). Also feel the round shape of the new sliders looks less appealing, but that's utterly subjective.

</comment><comment><USER18> The proposals put forth in the article are lacking any affordances common place in the nineties and obliterated from "modern" and "beautiful" "design systems" of the future. Why has so much work been put into "moving forward" to a dystopian unusable future instead of backpedaling back to a past where everything was empirically more usable?

I would prefer specific descriptions of changes in articles like this. Being "modern" or "beautiful" mean thing to me except "probably work poorly and look worse compared to the same thing twenty years ago".

For example, "The new theme is more consistent with Windows 10 and iOS than the previous look and feel. However, it still doesn't perfectly align with native controls so users will still have trouble learning an adapting."

I don't see how 100% native control implementations isn't the target here. Developers and designers wanting to steer the look of a control toward their application or website will still have the same amount of work cut out for them and will still have to fight an uphill battle to keep their applications looking the way they want. Developers and designers wanting an as-native- looking-and-feeling control will now have to augment the new designs to steer them toward native, something the user agent should be doing.

<comment><USER19> Using native control implementations in a browser isn't really an option. They make a lot of assumptions about how rendering works and how input events are routed which don't hold up inside a browser.

<comment><USER4> I'm pretty sure browsers in the 90s used native UI, or at least IE did.

<comment><USER20> Only for the select element. And that's a major reason why it was so broken amidst all the browser-rendered content.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "In an effort to help centralize this feedback and include as many developers as possible in the standards process, the team at Edge have created open- ui.org."

I did not realize these two posts were related. The open-ui website looks pretty alpha.

I'm all for improving the standards though

</comment><comment><USER22> Only thing notable here is the date-picker redesign... Nice.

I'm still waiting on a combined date + time picker.. Individually using both to accomplish one thing is such pain to use.

<comment><USER23> Have you seen <input type="datetime-local"> ? I'm not sure how good the browser support for it is yet but you could probably polyfill pretty easily.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> How does Chrome ensure that changing these designs does not regress site layouts? For example, the date controls now have new affordances (the calendar and clock buttons) which occupy more space - won't that break some sites?

I recall from AppKit days that replacing the system label font (San Francisco) regressed layouts, and there was some back-and-forth with designers to ensure the new font did not have greater advances.

<comment><USER25> Firefox is experimenting with changes that are rather similar in various regards. At this time it's increasing checkboxes and radio buttons from 13×13 to 17×17, among other changes, and I find it's breaking a _lot_ of things, though normally not severely. Checkboxes have been 13×13 for so long that lots of layouts have assumed it.

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1381938](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1381938) is a good starting point if you're interested in this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Unfortunately this effort will barely matter since most pages re-style form controls, ignoring one of the foundations of good UX (familiarity). We are in 2020 and web forms are still a mess. We can hope better / more familiar default form controls will decrease this demand for customization a bit.

<comment><USER27> They are restyling because it doesn't look "great", so Google follows the trends to make restyling unnecessary.

<comment><USER28> It was never necessary. They restyle because it's easy and fun, and it gives the site greater brand coherence in static screenshots. And they'll continue to do it after this redesign.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Those new sliders are horrible. They don't give you an accurate idea of their value, or even that they are to be interacted with. Very bad.

</comment><comment><USER30> Any hope of select multiple not be a usability disaster? It is has been almost 10 years since I have used the native widget on that one.

</comment><comment><USER31> After the "autocomplete" disaster, I'm very weary any time the Chromium team makes broad changes to form and form controls.

<comment><USER32> Got a link or reference for what you're speaking of?

<comment><USER33> He's likely talking about how autocomplete="off" is now ignored, and Chrome will "helpfully" display its own autocomplete on any textbox that look like address fields, which results in Chrome's autocomplete being shown on top of the site's own autocomplete. Progress.

<comment><USER34> Biggest problem for me when working on a web game was that it was autocompleting the password input for creating a new room with the password for your account (from the login screen). I found no way to disable their autocomplete.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> the filled in slider seems a problem to me. It gets used for situations where it doesn't mean "everything up to this value" it might mean "everything down to this value" or "exactly this value"

</comment><comment><USER36> I didn't even notice the checkbox on the right. It's just a white square with a border. The previous one is very well-known. That's a real shame.

<comment><USER37> Wouldn't that be because you are used to the style of checkboxes? I mean usually a checkbox would be accompanied by a label as well, which adds to the 'this is a checkbox' vibe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> styling native input elements is a major pain in the ass. I would say input is probably the most styleable native input. Checkboxes, radiobuttons, select, file input need a lot of fighting to style them. In many cases, what ends up happening is we create a styled div, and have a transparent input behind it to do the right thing.

The web form elements in that way just feels quite broken. There's a reason why there are tons of design systems that replicate a number of form elements using plain div/span elements with css and javascript. [https://github.com/alexpate/awesome-design- systems](https://github.com/alexpate/awesome-design-systems)

I wish the people designing the spec weren't so disconnected from reality of what people actually want to do with the web. A lot of the problems can be easily solved by giving more styling ability to native form elements and extensibility.

</comment><comment><USER39> For websites, as opposed to webapps, this might be fine. But a webapp will pretty nearly alawys want to look the same cross platform, sort of forcing styling.

I get it, they didn't like what they looked like before, because reasons. But I wonder what percentage of sites and apps were using unstyled controls.

</comment><comment><USER40> I thought they announced no new Chrome major releases planned for quite a while?

<comment><USER20> Those changes have been in the pipeline for a while, courtesy of Microsoft's Chromium-based Edge team. They've been in Edge for quite some time already, so Chrome only has to ship them as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> This new redesign is gorgeous!

</comment><comment> awinter-py I wonder what will replace the web

</comment><comment><USER42> What an utter waste of time and resources. It looked fine before and doesn't look any better now. Worse if anything.</comment>


Hide your health insurance status and pay cash instead - <AUTHOR> http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/06/hide-health-insurance-status-pay-cash.html <comment><USER2> A good start, but shopping around is hard, if not impossible. I always try to do it when getting care in the states, and more often than not the person you're talking to has no idea what they charge, or else won't discuss it without having the doctor's orders in hand first. ("How much does a chest x-ray cost?" "We'll assess costs after the doctor orders some tests." "But how do I know if I want to see the doctor at this hospital if I don't know how much everything costs?")

Worse is the case of emergencies or worry, when you have other things on your mind than shopping around and possibly spending days or weeks slogging through the internet for lists of doctor and test center phone numbers. In that case you're literally trapped into paying whatever they demand.

In either case the system is absolutely monstrous and everyone involved (except, of course, the doctors and nurses) should be ashamed of themselves.

<comment><USER3> It's 110% broken from a consumer point-of-view, which is funny because most of the people that defend the status quo in the US are political conservatives who talk about the 'free market' and such.

When no one in an entire building of service provides can give you even a _ballpark_ of what a service will cost you, there's no free market at work - at least not at the consumer/individual level.

<comment><USER4> I agree that it's broken from the consumer's point of view. But, conservatives aren't defending anything. They acknowledge that the system is broken, because there's no free market to speak of. If you think the current state of things resembles a free market in any way, you're sorely mistaken. The ACA/Obamacare isn't an effort to fix health care. It's an attempt to reconfigure and eventually bankrupt the health care _insurance_ industry. And both parties are to blame, ultimately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This whole situation could get solved with two swift changes in the law:

\- Employer provided healthcare is now illegal (with exceptions for the military).

\- Healthcare discounts are now illegal. Insurance and cash-in-hand individuals pay exactly the same rate.

These changes would be quite painful in the short term. In fact there would be a queue of people arguing why this was a horrible idea (the "I got mine" group).

However in the long term this makes health insurance more similar to auto- insurance (car insurance).

People can actually shop around, insurers have to compete for individual's business, and if people want to forgo insurance or go with a smaller insurer (new business!) then they can.

Plus insurers and individuals will now both work together to bring hospital care costs down (they're on the same "side").

But people are too short sighted to see what a massive leap forward this would be. It is the very definition of a healthy capitalist market. But their thinking about insurance and how it "should" work is just so muddied with what has been done up until now.

Employer insurance in particular is a massive problem - due to the lock-in (both between employees and their employer's insurance company AND between the employee and employer). It really hurts innovation, startups, and growth in America today.

Healthcare discounts hurt people without insurance AND make the insurance sector uncompetitive. It is impossible to start a new insurance scheme now because you cannot get big enough discounts to be competitive.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure I fully grasp your argument, but if health insurance becomes anything like car insurance, then at best it's just a slightly lesser evil. I've been paying car insurance for about 15 years, at $120 a month, which is about $21,600 paid in so far, and I haven't used it once. The one time I got into a minor fender bender, I just gave the guy some cash and parted ways. If I reported it, then my rates would go up and the insurance company would eventually make back whatever they paid out anyway. Over my lifetime, I'll have given them perhaps upwards of $100,000...for what? It's not worth it to pay so much to have peace of mind against some hypothetical horrible accident.

I would much rather a more government-backed system, where the government tallies all the automobile-related accident costs at the end of the year and foots the public the bill.

<comment><USER7> Basic liability insurance (for auto) is more like $500 a year. That's more or less the mandated part of the coverage.

I don't really care to see the government insure expensive cars and the assets of the wealthy (expensive cars and asset protection are the big drivers of expensive insurance).

<comment><USER6> $500 * 50 years is still $25,000 over a lifetime. I feel safe in saying that that number doesn't come anywhere close to the damages that an average person actually causes. And besides, I paid about that much when living in the midwest for a stint, but around an east coast city you'll be lucky to get that price for half a year.

My master plan could similarly relate population density to accountability.

You have a good point about "luxury" assets (and certainly there would be many special cases like this to account for), but I'm not really talking about government _insurance_ per se, because it's based on actual damages. If no car accidents happened in a year, nobody would pay any money.

<comment><USER7> I have more than the legal minimum of liability insurance, live in an East coast state and pay less than $600 year. I do have a fairly clear record.

People that carry collision are doing so because someone made it a condition of a loan or because they are worried about the cost of losing a vehicle. I don't see any reason to bring the government into those situations.

<comment><USER6> Fair enough. I ran an orange light a few years ago and my insurance costs went up by 150%. While the $500/year price tag may be what's on paper, I find that it isn't the reality for most people.

It isn't so much bringing the government in, as just using them as the non- profit middle man to tally all the car-related damage costs, then foot the bill to the public. If someone wanted to opt out and use private insurance, they would be free to do so.

Obviously this will never happen in the USA, but it would be an interesting social experiment for a smaller country perhaps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article is completely at odds with Time's article [1] from a few days ago, that showed that out of pocket payers must pay the hospital's chargemaster prices, which are set at ridiculously high levels to act as an anchor in negotiations with insurance companies. If you're not an insurance company, you pay that inflated rate. If you are, you have negotiated it down to as low as 20% of that rate.

I think I trust the Time article a lot more than this linkbait.

[1] [http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why- medica...](http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical- bills-are-killing-us/)

<comment><USER9> I think what's happening is that more physicians are getting sick (pun intended!) of dealing with insurance providers so while that Time article is correct, so is this one.

I have only once come across a physician that didn't take any kind of insurance, but know from other anecdotes that it is becoming more prevalent.

I also had an experience recently where I went to a specialty provider that didn't accept my insurance, so it was handled as out-of-network. However, they billed me only what I would have paid had it been an in-network provider, which was considerably less.

<comment><USER10> Physicians in private practice can pay _half_ of their gross billing in insurance collection costs, including denied claims (which patients are nominally responsible for, but often don't/can't pay) and hiring experts to deal with the deliberately complex and ever-changing paperwork that insurance companies use to induce excuses to deny claims. That's before all other costs, including staff with an actual non-bureaucratic purpose, office space, malpractice insurance, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Personally, I've never seen that work. And it doesn't even sound like a reasonable approach, unless you're trying like hell to stay under some annual or lifetime coverage cap. [1]

Before I had insurance I was getting ~$1200 quotes for procedures. Paying up- front would get that knocked down to ~$1000. Paying cash would get it knocked down to ~$800.

After I had insurance, the claims statements showed the insurance company's negotiated rate at ~$400 for the same exact procedure.

If I let the up-front bills go to collections, the due amounts would drop massively from that $800. But that's not a sustainably advantageous strategy. And even then it's not going to be appreciably better than even paying cash at the insurance company's negotiated rate.

[1] In which case, you really aren't a person who should have a capped medical plan. It's always going to cost you more to carry such a 'cheap' plan. Even if out-of-pocket payments are cheaper than going through your insurance plan and paying the difference. You'd be better off paying more up-front and getting proper coverage, if at all possible.

<comment><USER12> The Affordable Care Act (popularly known as Obamacare) removes lifetime and annual coverage caps on essential healthcare benefits starting in 2014.

<comment><USER13> Except for all the exceptions, which include pretty much every existing coverage plan, which still holds for companies with said plans, even if you are a new hire.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> About 9 months ago, I had a severe bout of food poisoning. I had gotten so dehydrated that I passed out briefly and was physically unable to pick myself up out of an awkward position between the toilet and the wall next to the toilet. I was unemployed at the time (but working, trying to get a software product off the ground on my own) and had no emergency medical insurance. My roommate (thank God I had one) took me to the ER where they gave me a mild anti-nausea drug and pumped me full of fluids.

The hospital only charged me about 40% of the full bill, due to my "hardship" of being unemployed. Still, it was $1200 for nothing a little weed and a gallon of Gatorade wouldn't do. Most of the bill was to have a doctor walk in the room, make a few jokes at me, and leave. If I knew I'd be paying for a standup routine, I would have preferred to go see Louis C.K. and saved $1100.

I still haven't bought health insurance, which is certainly a gamble, but so is buying health insurance. When you buy health insurance, you're betting against the insurance company that you're going to put less money into insurance premiums than you're going to get out as benefits. In the last 2 and a half years of not having health insurance, that one ER trip is the only medical need I've had. In the end, $1200 was a lot less than I would have paid in premiums. So far, I'm winning my gamble.

<comment><USER15> the problem is that this is a power law gamble. if you lose big (Cancer), it will cost you either your life or your financial life.

<comment><USER14> Which is actually not that big of a different risk if I had insurance. Just because I have insurance doesn't mean A) that my cancer would be treatable, B) that the treatment would be desirable, or C) that my insurance would be sufficient to cover it. People get screwed over by their insurance companies all the time.

In the specific case of cancer, I'm not sure the treatment is worth it. I've seen a lot of people go through really awful treatments that ruined the quality of their last few months/years, only to die anyway. I don't want to put my families through the emotional and financial burden of that. I've personally never seen any insurance that fully covered someone's cancer treatment.

In the end, cancer always gets you. You could do everything to try to prevent every other cause of death, but cancer will always eventually get you. That's a big part of why I'm working on the things I care about now, rather than waiting for some nebulous "future" when I have "enough money". That future may never come.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> So, an interesting attempt at making a nice transparent marketplace that I know of is SnapHealth ( <https://www.snaphealth.com/> ).

These folks are working to provide an easy directory where you can look up all the doctors in your area and get their pricing for services on a cash basis.

It's interesting watching as the industry goes through these undulations trying to sort itself out.

(Disclaimer: I know the folks working on it, so if you have any comments/questions/concerns I'd love to pass them on.)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I came across this article out of frustration. My wife went to a clinic that posted an office visit rate of $99. She presented our insurance card just so the outlay would get logged in the system against our out-of-pocket total, but there was no expectation of actually getting any money back. We have a very high deductible (by choice), and we'll see insurance money only in a really bad year, not unlike auto or house insurance. But since she showed them that card, suddenly the amount we owed shot up to $273. Both the clinic's and insurance company's response to us has been basically: suck it up, we have contracts in place.

</comment><comment><USER17> I have a high-deductible insurance policy so I just pay up front for medical services (out of an HSA, but it's no different to the doc). Despite paying before the visit I got a bill after an appointment and then another warning that it was late. I called today after researching the CPT code and current billing schedule from my area to confirm that what they wanted was BS and as soon as she looked at my account she said "oh, yea they forgot to add the write off".

Medical billing is so screwed up. I walk in and pay up front and it still somehow counts as a write off. A write off for what I am not sure, I am supposedly paying list price. I assume they really jack up the prices, have a pool for "uninsured" (regardless of merit) and then mark down from there to get a nice tax benefit because they gave a lot of "charity" care. I'd consider the $135 I paid for a < 10 minute visit to be more than ample compensation, whatever they're getting for the $90 write off should be fraud.

</comment><comment><USER18> Incidentally, if you have an HSA account and can still afford to pay out of pocket, that basically allows your HSA money to continue to accrue over time.

(From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account>): "There is no deadline for self-reimbursements of qualified medical expenses. High-income individuals can take advantage of this by paying for medical costs out of pocket, retaining receipts and allowing their accounts to grow tax-free. Money can then be withdrawn years later for any reason, up to the value of the receipts. [23]"

</comment><comment><USER19> There is a huge difference between the price charged to an insurance company and the already agreed upon allowable amount they will pay. Almost all insurance companies make these allowable amounts available to providers; and it is very rare for a provider to bill the allowable amount. In my experience they usually bill double.

I find any article that doesn't mention the word "allowable" completely disingenuous.

</comment><comment><USER20> One of the problems with US health insurance is that it is tax deductible only when "paid" by the employer. Making it deductible by everyone would help.

The article does not account for the difficulty of shopping around. If you have the time to travel then it's possible, but often medical care has some urgency so you need to use the closest service provider.

If this really is a trend then the best result would be for people to start taking out catastrophic health insurance. The idea is that they would be insured for very large and very unusual events and cover the routine payments by paying cash.

<comment><USER3> It's deductible no matter who pays. I've had a private policy paid for by myself for my family for years. I deduct the cost of that from my taxes.

The bigger issue is people generally are accustomed to larger/bigger plan coverage from employers, and employers contribute a portion, skewing the 'real' price.

High deductible policies help A LOT, but I fear those are going to be harder to use under Obamacare (for seemingly ridiculous reasons). We're paying $330/month for a high deductible policy with $5k deductible. Would be close to $250/month for a $10k I think. And, I think, that's likely how it should be, vs paying $800-$1000/month for a plan with a low (or no!) deductible.

I've had friends say "well, I don't have $10k just sitting around in case there's a medical bill!" A few rebuttals to that mentality:

1\. Some of these same people have no issues with financing new cars every few years.

2\. You'd have $10k in savings much faster if you were only paying $400/month instead of $1400/month for insurance.

3\. We had a big issue a couple years ago, and had an emergency room visit. That was January - we didn't get a bill until April, and it had a number to call to work out a payment plan - you can finance your emergency medical expenses.

I realize these numbers don't work out for everyone in all cases, but neither does employer-provided health care.

<comment><USER21> > It's deductible no matter who pays.

That does not square with this[1]: If you are not self-employed, and you don't work for a company that provides health insurance with a cafeteria plan, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) allows you to count health and dental insurance premiums as part of the 7.5% of your adjusted gross income that has to be spent on health care before any out-of-pocket medical expenses can be deducted.

[1][http://healthinsurance.about.com/b/2010/01/25/are-my- health-...](http://healthinsurance.about.com/b/2010/01/25/are-my-health- insurance-premiums-tax-deductible.htm)

<comment><USER3> I am self-employed, as is my wife. Most people I know with a spouse with insurance choose to stay on that instead, but it's often not really a better deal - it's just habit/convenience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> My daughter had an itchy eye. I took her to the doctor at a children's clinic affiliated with a well-known children's hospital. They asked for $150 upfront which I paid. The doctor came, examined her for five minutes and wrote a prescription for an allergy medicine that cost over a hundred dollars. Two weeks later we got the bill. They tacked on another $175 for moving us from one room to another. I forgot how they expressed it, but that seemed to be the reason. Over $400 and the medicine didn't really help.

</comment><comment><USER23> Not long ago there was an article here which reached an opposite conclusion, for hospital costs. It is just unwise not to have health insurance in this country. Hospitals can charge you arbitrary amounts. If you pay cash and have not agreed on everything in advance it is not a good deal. Paying cash probably makes sense for some routine procedures in case you have a high deductible health plan.

<comment><USER23> I also do not buy the whole "shopping around" thing, even if it worked. The idea that patient should know almost nothing about costs is a right one. The current implementation of this idea suffers from various problems, but as more people get health insurance under Obamacare, things will get better. Ideally, under single payer system, patient gets no bills at all, because all of the providers are "in network", as there is only one network.

<comment><USER24> There is an entire company (Castlight Health) that is centered around trying to allow people to "shop around" for healthcare. Despite cutting edge technology and access to data no one else gets (through member companies insurance statements) the general public can't use it unless their employer signs up for the service.

Without this capability, shopping around for healthcare is absolutely impossible. How can you shop around when the prices aren't publically listed and aren't known by the staff/physicians?

This article, by the way, is terrible. He gives horrifically bad advice, acting as if the majority of clinics/hospitals actually discount costs for the uninsured. THEY DON'T, as the vastly better researched article "The Bitter Pill" from Time Magazine last week clearly illustrated.

I've been a consumer asking for prices as part of a HSA high deductible health plan before. There is no mechanism to support shopping around at all, and the clinics/hospitals still act on a zero price transparency model. See the "chargemasters" discussed in the Time article. They are databases of prices which are not at all publically accessible.

The federal gov't should step in, and, at a minimum, force hospitals/clinics to make their chargemaster databases publically accessible. This would be a game changer for consumers in health care.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> //One of the problems with US health insurance is that it is tax deductible only when "paid" by the employer.//

Healthcare expenses are deductible, but only those that exceed 7.5% of your AGI. So if you are a software developer making $100K a year at a start up with crappy health insurance, you can start deducting expenses once they exceed about $7500, depending on your tax situation. Of course, health premiums deducted pre-tax from your paycheck are not deductible at all.

<comment><USER21> tax deductible above 7.5% AGI is very different from tax deductible above $0. Your $100k/yr developer would pay $2,100 in tax on the first $7,500 before the deduction takes effect.

Also, the reason you can't deduct the "pre-tax" premiums is because you were never taxed on them in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> """A recent article in the Los Angeles Times reported a CT scan of the abdomen costs about $2,400 for patients insured by Blue Shield of California, while the Los Alamitos (Calif.) Medical Center cash price is only $250. That is a 89% discount by my calculation.

[snip]

If you tell them you have insurance, they will be bound to charge you the insurance company's negotiated rate. Those are the up to 89% higher fees documented in the previous paragraph."""

2400 is 860% higher than 250, not 89% higher.

</comment><comment><USER27> It's not just the costs, it's the treatment. This happened to me: I went into a doctor after I had an accident. He said I needed an MRI and prescription painkiller. I said, doctor, I have no insurance. He said, in that case, you need an X-ray and Tylenol.

</comment><comment><USER28> This could make HSAs (health savings accounts) much more desirable.</comment>


Ask HN: Why can't we eat dead human flesh like we eat dead animal flesh? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> In general, eating apex predators is pretty bad, because they have (and we humans have) a high concentration of every bad thing that the less-than-apex predators and herbivores pick up from the environment.

Eating human flesh can lead to transmitting parasites, as can consuming animals fed on human feces (pigs or fish). The big example of this is Kuru ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_\(disease\)))

So: avoid human flesh to avoid concentrations of mercury, dioxin, parasites and prion-related diseases.

<comment><AUTHOR> What if we all become vegetarians and the only meat we eat is recycled human flesh after we die.

This is just an extreme thought experiment.

What if there was a way to sanitize meats of pathogens and parasites?

Imagine we are in a distant planet that can't sustain CAFOs and there are just other humans around...and we don't have resources or energy to raise meat for protein, nutrients and calories..and can only grow a certain kinds of plants as food.

Re Apex predators: wouldn't shark or whales be apex predators of the ocean? And we consume them..some do anyways.

<comment><USER3> Vegans and vegetarians live without consuming meat. There's plenty of plant substitutes for the nutrients we get from meat (nuts, mushrooms, soy and so on).

<comment><USER4> That's quite interesting. I've heard that there are some substances which human body need and which can be found in animal flesh. I've just googled for that and it seems there are plenty of articles confirming that. So I don't know who is right...

Here are just 2 random articles from google search:

[https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant- ge...](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from- plants#section1)

[https://www.alexfergus.com/blog/8-proven-reasons-why- vegan-a...](https://www.alexfergus.com/blog/8-proven-reasons-why-vegan-and- vegetarian-diets-easily-ruin-your-body)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Also for the same reason dead's organs are not reused unless consented by the person or his closest kith/kin when consent of the person is unknown. Mostly there is no consent by them because they are humiliated by having the thought of being valued as a food first by a stranger of their society.

2\. If you have enough poor in your country and human flesh is valued enough, people will get killed for black market.

3\. Human flesh can be deadly like Kuru. I couldn't watch videos of how they had tremours! The clan was on the verge of collapsing so they stopped.

<comment><USER6> I think that consent is irrelevant and if you can use it for food it is OK (they are dead and cannot consent, and also the other plants/animals you also don't usually consent either). The dead body (human or otherwise) is for eating (whether by human or others animals) and for recycling. That is how to do the nature, and it is good.

However, Kuru is good point; since it is not good to eat, so, don't eat, please (another comment mentions other kind of disease too). There is valid reason to be careful due to such thing. It is also contrary to the English cultural that I know, I think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Because "Eating People is Wrong".

Vegan here, my gf had a shirt saying that, with the Goya picture _Saturn Devouring his Son_ [0] on it. I liked it so much she got me one too. Important message, I think.

But seriously...we can, see the book/movie _Alive_ [1]. If it's that or starve to death, we all would. It apparently was (is?) common in many traditional cultures, e.g. (as I learnt recently) in areas of the Philippines until the 19th C.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Devouring_His_Son](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Devouring_His_Son)

[1] [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106246/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106246/)

<comment><AUTHOR> But if they are not slaughtered/killed for food and are 'harvested' just before their eminent demise, what is wrong with using perfectly good food.

Obviously there are ethical issues/black market abuse etc. but it seems such a waste to inject a body full of formaldehyde or whatever or burn it or bury it after the homo sapien organism is considered an empty shell after its organs cease to function.

Thanks for all that first quote! I love Flanders and Swann! I used to think it hilarious and fun to start singing 'The Reluctant Cannibal' at dinners until I had to stop doing it because 1. No one got it anymore 2. They didn't think it was funny.

I am a vegetarian, but I might be less squeamish about ingesting meat if it was harvested ethically. Perhaps mere minutes after death or right after death. We harvest organs after one dies. Why not the rest of the body?

<comment><USER7> Such schemes are called 'modest proposals' after Swift's original [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal)

Well yes, I've wondered why people who think factory farming at its worst is acceptable, with their "The animal wouldn't exist without the farm" and "painless slaughter is OK" arguments etc, never consider farmed human meat. One could use a lot of the factory farming arguments in its favour. (Both are abhorrent to me.)

<comment><AUTHOR> I would hazard a guess that while Swift was a brilliant satirist, he likely drew from what was probably not taboo.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Psalmanazar](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Psalmanazar) : Psalmanazar was supposedly one of the real life people he borrowed from..he was an imposter who claimed to be from Formosa(Taiwan) and spun tales about human sacrifice and priests eating the hearts of young boys.

Now this might not have been entirely untrue because China(definitely not the same as Formosa as those times..but in the broader geographical region) definitely had a recipe book for cooking convicts and each crime had a custom recipe and even which parts of the body was used etc.

In India, thugees regularly sacrificed children because they were pure and blemishless. Mythology is full of children being killed by the Asuras or the 'evil kings' of prophesied enemies by snatching them up as infants right after they were born and killed.

Child sacrifice in Pre Colombian cultures were not uncommon either. Incas certainly offered children as sacrifice but likely didn't rely on children for sustenance. Do you see the theme of religion seeking children as sacrifice? Which meant the priests likely ate them first...prior to becoming pastoral settlers and farmers, children were a burden to hunter gatherer communities. They held them back and the women were occupied with the raising of children. They had as few children as they could...as they settled down and started farming and owning properties and the concept of inheritance occurred wrt new 'wealth', then having a lot of children not just for labour but also for insurance became a desirable necessity.

Let's not forget the filial sacrifice in the Old Testament..the very first Abrahamic lore starts with a father sacrificing his son on the mount. It occurs again and again in many of the stories of offering burnt sacrifices of children to God in the many stories. Later, there are many prohibitions against child and human sacrifice which means that it was a common practice earlier...likely with the cannonites and who worshipped Baal and Moloch as idols. I wouldn't forget the Assyrians either...

Having said that, the Spartans were known to have exposed their infants..especially the sickly ones. Don't know if they consumed them tho'..but these were a warrior people and not by those conducting religious priestly activity. But once again it's a form of euthanasia/eugenics because they only wanted strong future warriors. And of course, Cato's plea for Carthago Delenda Est because they were child sacrificers.

Time and again, we see sacrifice of humans ..and especially children..in our history. The more I think about it, every single culture in myth and lore has child sacrifice. It's actually remarkable...agriculture probably changed that because more hands means more land could be cultivated which meant there would be enough food from the land.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice) : there seems to be more!

Even Grimm's Tales was pretty with Hansel and Gretel being caught by the witch and readied for the stew pot. The original fairy tales definitely wasn't meant to be a metaphor or satire.

Altho..this..in our modern times with its illustrations and witticisms offers a gentle reminder to children and adults alike as to who we really are:

[https://www.amazon.com/How-Cook-Children-Grisly- Recipe/dp/18...](https://www.amazon.com/How-Cook-Children-Grisly- Recipe/dp/1862057710)

Phew!

<comment><USER8> I think you're mixing sacrifice with eating/consuming.

In most cases of human sacrifice, it was done for religious reasons, and the meat wan't eaten (or if it was then in small quantities, like eating the hearts as you mentioned). even back then, the consumption of human body parts wasn't considered healthy or nourishing, it was done only to appease the gods/give us their favor/make us stronger/etc.

I think that thoughts and stories of eating people, and especially kids that is pretty common in many societies and myths, comes as a warning or as something to fear, both because human sacrifice was common enough at a certain point, but also because it helped to easily scar people (whether the parents or the children themselves).

I think that one of the problems with eating dead humans, even recently dead people, is that those are even worst "parts" then the livings parts. What I mean is the even in the conventional meat eating industry they usually don't eat meat from animals that died naturally (and i'm assuming you're not talking about mass murder), and the reason for that is that the animal (or in our case, the human), died for a certain reason, more likely then not, from health reasons, so the chance of the meat containing disease, sickness, or even just being super weak is a lot higher then when they take a supposedly healthy animal, kill it, and harvest it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Re religious sacrifices, they were certainly eaten. Again and again, there is prohibition of sacrifices and the very Isaac story was a religious edict that permitted substitution of goat/sheep(?) to human child.

Indian lores of dacoits and thugeee seeking infants was likely because they were to be consumed before they got sick or had infections. Babies get a slew of infections as to develop immunity. A 'blemishless' baby was important.

In India, we pierce babies ears when they are mewling infants. It makes them imperfect sacrifices. In some rural parts, they dab the baby's face with charcoal paste and it's supposed to ward off the 'evil eye'. But now that I think about it, it likely served to make a child look pockmarked or just 'not perfect' and hence less risk of being kidnapped for cooking.

In more organized religions with a priest(pre Colombian), the priest always 'tasted' the prized organs(heart for instance ..of a warrior because he was brave) and distributed the rest of the body.

If you see how African tribes hunt and eat..they have one hunting trip and they eat well and the rest of the time, they just subsist on fish or foraged greens and root vegetables.

Meat was never eaten in quantities like we do now. It was unheard of...so for any tribe or community, it's a lot of food. Likely an addition with ceremonial significance to their kill.

This isn't about the original query re humans eating other dead humans (and if I can reword it: "self synthesizing human food from humans")...but wrt the side discussion re children and human sacrifice and cannibalism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What I wonder is how castaways lost at sea that ate their dead crew managed to survive without getting some kind of crazy infection/disease. Especially if it was uncooked flesh.

<comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps prion diseases were rare.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Where do you think Soylent Green comes from?

Incidentally, 2022 is not very far away at all.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha! "Soylent..it's made out of people!!!"

I was so tickled when the beverage people picked the name Soylent for their product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm vegan and still alive.</comment>


Caterpillar - A PHP Web Crawler using parallel requests - <AUTHOR> http://www.jqueryin.com/caterpillar-the-php-site-crawler/

<comment><AUTHOR> I created this library awhile back to be called from the CLI as a cronjob. The sole purpose is to crawl your entire domain and create a database of all pages, inbound link counts, last modified times, etc. This data can then be used by a separate script for statistical data or generating a sitemap XML file. The inbound links count gives you the capability of adding priorities to your sitemap file. The last modified time gives you a fairly accurate depiction of when the content was last updated for the sitemap file as well. This is a huge step up for sites with dynamic data that don't have any form of modified timestamp association.

The largest site I tested this on had ~500 pages. I would recommend you have your memory_limit to at least 32MB in php.ini as the crawler can be fairly memory intensive when it spawns 5 parallel processes for crawling. I did some fairly extensive optimizations to keep the memory limit down; if you spot anything that could be improved upon please let me know.</comment>


Is a US War with Iran on the Horizon? - <AUTHOR> http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176537/ <comment><USER2> I don't think anyone haven't seen the push for war for years. Scary the population is buying it.</comment>


Guide to Recursion for Coding Interviews - <AUTHOR> https://www.byte-by-byte.com/recursion <comment> jim-jim-jim I didn't major in cs, but took a 101 level course for fun. It was taught with Python. Never really got the unit on recursion. Made it through the work, but I didn't feel comfortable actually using it in any future code.

Some time after graduating I bought a used copy of SICP and recursion clicked for me as soon as it was introduced. The parenths, prefix notation, and notion of evaluating expressions rather than returning values just made it seem so much more natural.

This is probably an annoying comment since HN already has more than enough Lisp wanking, but I wonder if other students also experienced hangups over recursion because the course's language's syntax doesn't quite facilitate it in the same way.

</comment><comment><USER2> The example is buggy. In a better version, both the parameter and the returned type should be unsigned. With negative numbers, that don't make sense, the program will crash. I don't think the interviewer will like it written in that way :-)</comment>


An MRI costs $1,145 in the US and $138 in Switzerland. Medicare will change that - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2014/9/4/6104533/the-125-percent-solution-for-american-health-care

<comment><USER2> Makes me feel guilty. I've been putting off a free MRI (Canada) for over a month because I'm essentially too lazy to go up the street to have it done. Knowing there is likely people who would work a long time to have it done, and probably need it more than me is a good kick in the butt.</comment>


Compose Electronic Music, Right in Your Browser - <AUTHOR> http://www.audiotool.com/ <comment><USER2> Pretty cool, but ultimately pointless for a few reasons.

No external controls, no external effects or synths (I know reason doesn't have them either, but everyone else does), no ability to sync to an external clock, etc.

While perfectly fine for putting together some beats, as anything other than a toy, it'd be hard to take it very seriously.

(PS. I wrote audio software back in the early 90's, including the first pattern based sequencer for Windows).

EDIT: I should add that I do think this is really cool and a nice app, BUT for what purpose? If musicians can't incorporate this into their workflow, then it's really just a toy from most musician/dj perspectives. And, they really haven't done anything that hasn't been done before, except for that it's targeted to the Flash runtime then where it really belongs: the desktop. I'm not certain an AIR version would even allow it integration via sync, rewire, etc.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I hope this is okay for Hacker News...I thought if nothing else, the novelty of it made it worthy of submission.

<comment><USER3> mos def

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Psyched to try this on my iPad! oh wait...

<comment><USER5> Didn't you hear? Steve Jobs officially ruled Flash useless! Get with the times, cretin!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Amazing... this is like Reason/Rebirth in your browser.

<comment><USER7> As a Reason user for several years, I'm floored. Not merely that these guys have basically built an entire platform for a browser-based Reason competitor, but by the sheer, astounding quality of the implementation.

The UI feels incredibly well thought-out, the virtual hardware artwork can only be described as a labor of love, and all the little UX things in a project that take way longer to get right than they seem, from the selection of device connections to way the cables lay around devices, feel like they've been iterated within a stone's throw of perfection.

If this were available on the desktop with MIDI support, it would be the first AIR app I'd actually pay money for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> For whatever reason, I find it more enjoyable in context: hobnox.com . Last time I looked at it, it was essentially Java applets background (sound), and Flash foreground (interface). Best use of Flash ever. Like to see it in HTML5. Cough.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm really curious what their business model will be. Given the modular look of the device library, my guess is that they'll start adding premium instruments and DSP devices, either as part of a subscription or as a la carte, one-time purchases.

It's too bad there's no way (that I know of, at least) for the Flash runtime to interface with MIDI drivers.

</comment><comment><USER9> Does anyone know if there's a similar online app for editing audio directly? i.e., import a wave file, apply effects like reverse, flanging, etc.?

<comment><USER10> Take a look at Myna:

<http://aviary.com/tools/myna>

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not bad, could use a decent tracker style sequencer.

</comment><comment><USER12> Anyone else having trouble playing anything from the timeline? I don't get any sound.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see you have to connect the outputs.

<comment><USER13> [http://en.wikiaudio.org/index.php?title=Audiotool_Firestarte...](http://en.wikiaudio.org/index.php?title=Audiotool_Firestarter:Basic_signal_flow_%28How_to_get_sound%29&redirect=no)

:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> this is amazing software! Tremendous potential.</comment>


A Meth Addict Gets Sober in Orange County Community Court - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/using-against-my-will/486203/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> _" In jail, there's everything you need: heroin, alcohol, pills, meth, weed."_

This is because the California Correctional Officers Association strongly opposes searches of guards.[1]

[1] [http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/04/local/la-me- prison-g...](http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/04/local/la-me-prison- guards-20110204)

<comment><USER3> Sort of a minor point but I wonder though if the quote meant prison rather than jail. Anecdotally I've heard that it is hard to get drugs in jail, but very easy in prison. This makes sense because people in jail are there for short stints and thus don't have time to make the connections required for a clandestine black market. A lot of people use the terms jail and prison interchangably, though they are technically different in the USA.

<comment><USER4> That is interesting. What is the distinction? Jail is usually a holding area while prison is for serving a sentence?

<comment><USER5> Jail is pre-conviction, prison post. (As a general rule, there are always exceptions)

<comment><USER6> Frequently, convictions under 1 year stay in jail for the duration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting insight into what addiction is really like. That mentality of 'I could relapse tomorrow' even after four years is very telling. Good on the guy for four years clean. He obviously wants it, and he's got the willpower to keep it together now that he's hit rock bottom. Glad his life is back on track.

<comment><USER8> He could also take drugs tomorrow and stop the next day. Us addicts seemingly think of relapsing as something that happens to you, like if you're walking down the street and fall into a manhole. But you're not powerless, it's just a self-fulfilling prophecy. It'll take at least weeks of continued use to get addicted again (that's for opioids, amphetamines are not addictive in that way.) Then again, it's never enough to just do it once as you want to be on the drug forever. This is why it's easy to continue using again, but it's also possible to stop.

EDIT To clarify: I'm not condoning relapsing, I only want people to know that all hope is not lost if you made the decision to use again. I'm also not saying that it will be easy to stop again, just that it's going to be easier than you think.

<comment><USER9> Downvoted. Addiction is powerful and the false belief that you can "just dabble" is what causes a lot of relapse. It is a common excuse/justification for people during a relpse.

If you are speaking this way from a personal perspective you should take the resumption of addictive behavior seriously and consider getting help.

Flippant attitude toward relapse is not a good attitude for someone who wants to stay clean.

<comment><USER8> Good friends of mine died from walking into a relapse, I don't take it lightly at all. Relapses are so common it's dangerous to tell people all is lost if they use just one more time.

Personally I've been clean for years, but what saved me was getting back into work so that I had something to occupy my time. It's easier to drop the tin foil when you have work and responsibilities in the morning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In all honesty, the fact that he had been an upright taxpaying citizen to begin with... good job, house, car, friends etc., was an excellent incentive to break the habit. My stepbrother is in his late 30's, has 5 illegitimate kids, no job, no car, and has never held a driver's license. Oh and he's a heroin addict and all his friends are meth heads. Why doesn't he quit? He's lived in the same house virtually his entire life, in and out of jail and prison, and his dad essentially allows him to live there as a daily fuckup. DeLancey Street is an excellent court appointed 2yr alternative to the courts themselves. You can also just walk or drive in right off the street if you have the balls. Problem is you have to willingly enter it (the hard part), have no outstanding tickets/court appointments, and show up sober. Even so, I've seen guys with 4 years under their belt, walk out the door and OD within a week. It really boils down to the individul themselves and the choices they make. Guys with 30+ years of addiction do not normally survive it. It just eats them alive, if not slowly.

</comment><comment><USER11> My sister has a very bad drug problem. At this point we want her to go to jail, as it might help her want to get better. Sadly, as this guy said, it is very easy to get high in jail.

<comment><USER8> Jail/prison is the absolute worst place you can send a drug addict to. If anything it usually makes things much, much worse.

Sadly I don't have any solutions to your problems, only the advice to keep fighting for her and to treat her with compassion. If she's addicted to opioids you could consider buprenorphine.

<comment><USER11> No offense, but you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. We'd rather see her go to jail, than be dead. Which is a likely path for her.

<comment><USER12> Sending her to jail, depending on how it plays out, may disqualify her from student financial aid, government jobs, pretty much any job with an element of trust involved, housing, foreign travel. To keep her alive, you burn many bridges that could have led to a life worth living. More likely than death, jail is what will eventually happen on its own if you _fail_ to help her, and then she will carry that stigma forever (on top of being an addict).

<comment><USER13> I have no love of the American penal system or the drug war. That said:

A) You're right about the Draconian consequences of a jail sentence, and you also forgot to include the loss of her right to vote. However, I'd also like to point out that death will similarly disqualify his sister from student financial aid, government jobs, pretty much any job with an element of trust involved, housing, foreign travel. It might also disqualify her from voting, though there's always some reports each election cycle to the contrary.

B) My brother in law did go to prison for a useless drug offence that was a complete waste of everyone's time, thought it did make the police departments numbers look a bit better in their annual report. All of those bridges that you spoke of _have_ been burned for him. As I understood your argument, you believe that his life is no longer worth living? Should I go ahead and euthanise him while I'm in town next Thanksgiving?

I hate the prison system. I hate the drug war. They are both broken on every level and future generations will judge us for how vilely we've handled this situation. However, I also have the perspective to know that there are people for whom there are worse fates than a life with a felony conviction on her record. They aren't common, and my brother in law wasn't one of them, but I accept the possibility that kilroy's sister might be one. It's certainly unlikely, but it's possible, and kilroy know the facts in the case better than I do.

Edit1: Fixed some language

<comment><USER12> Hmm, it sounds like you're disagreeing, but I basically agree with everything you said.

> As I understood your argument, you believe that his life is no longer worth > living? Should I go ahead and euthanise him while I'm in town next > Thanksgiving?

That's not up to you or me. You'll have to ask him. Or just observe whether he seems to have found his spark among the options that are still available. I'm definitely not saying a criminal record makes it impossible to find and pursue a passion in life - only that when someone is in a self-destructive pattern, "helping" by dishing out punishment and cutting off avenues of growth is not sensible at all. Now occasionally someone is literally on the verge of suicide, and confinement might get them through it, but it's only borrowed time if they'll be in a worse place after release.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> To me it sounds pretty much like the court sent him to Narcotics Anonymous and he got clean there. The sober living house had him pee in a cup to verify he was staying clean and that's about it.

<comment><USER15> The article has a link to another article that's more focused on the notion of a "drug court" [1] itself. I hadn't heard of the term either, but from the sound of it, the drug court runs / oversees a highly-structured program that's focused on addicts and that takes place outside of a prison. So it sounds like it's more than just "go to a sober living house, and let them enforce rules" and more of a probation-like situation.

[1] [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/helping-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/helping- not-punishing-addicts/487706/)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Somebody beat us to Hacker News. What can we do? - <AUTHOR>

We launched https://www.svyft.com a few days ago.
Somebody posted it on Hacker News before we could claim our luck to the front page. Is there something we can do?
This is the post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7768926 <comment><USER2> Why does it matter?

As you mention, it's all about luck regardless. In fact, the previous submission was submitted at an optimal time anyways: [http://i.imgur.com/BNCjNwK.png](http://i.imgur.com/BNCjNwK.png)

(picture from [http://minimaxir.com/2014/02/hacking-hacker- news/](http://minimaxir.com/2014/02/hacking-hacker-news/) )

<comment><AUTHOR> Max, I agree about the luck factor. But new app launches (Show HN) generally get better attention on HN. Dont you think ??

<comment><USER2> Actually, for that article, I had made a score histogram for Show HN articles, and it was near identical to the histogram of normal articles. (i.e. Show HNs don't lead to a significant change in the expected number of points). I had removed it from the post because it was getting long. :P

What you're seeing is confirmation bias. There are many, many Show HN posts made, and very few get upvoted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> if your marketing plan was mostly about submitting it to HN you might want to fire your marketing team.</comment>


MIT Announcement: 10x improvement over current Fast Fourier Transform - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/1810522/mits-math-breakthrough-could-transform-your-phone-tablet-pc-tv-mri-scans

<comment><USER2> I don't know what led this reporter to believe that improved FFTs could speed up rendering on mobile phones. Is there any basis to this at all? Seems like you have to create the picture first, before FFTs can be useful at all.

Maybe he confused compression with rendering?</comment>


Spoofed Number SMS Spam - <AUTHOR> I give up.
For the past two years now I've been getting 5 to 15 spam texts a month always from spoofed numbers. Often times including a hyperlink.
I get phone calls too. About twice as many. Also from spoofed numbers.
I installed the paid version of Robocall a few months ago
I frequently re register on the do not call registry.
I even spent a lot of time reporting the spam on the dnc website.
I want to learn how they are spoofing numbers and how they are making money.
Maybe if I understand how they're doing this I can feel a little less bothered by these incessant interruptions. <comment><USER2> For voice calls, most high volume VOIP services simply let the customer pick the caller ID. This is/was common for T1 based calling as well. There's lots of valid reasons for the customer to set something, so they just let anything through because it's easier; shaken/stir is supposed to change this over time.

To some degree this is true for SMS as well, but in the US, it's less so. Mostly you have to send from a number associated with your account, so you get 'random' number messages: the SMS aggregator has a ton of phone numbers, and picks one at random to send from. SMS spam is much rarer in my experience.

If you're in the mood, you can probably get most of the spammed links taken down by reporting to the providers; or if it's phishing, by reporting to the people being forged (who may have better connections; credit unions seem to know how to get things taken down real quick)

</comment><comment><USER3> Here is one recent example of a failed attempt to scam money: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22348721](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22348721)

</comment><comment><USER4> i'm afraid i don't have a lot of insight into the workings of spammers, but if you have at&t they offer a free app that uses crowdsourced blacklists to block then:

[https://www.att.com/support/article/wireless/KM1147710](https://www.att.com/support/article/wireless/KM1147710)

it has cut out about 2/3 of my spam calls (i don't get many texts)</comment>


The power of story: stories as agents of personal transformation - <AUTHOR> http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/once-upon-a-time-how-stories-change-hearts-and-brains/

<comment><USER2> "People say that what we're all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think that what we're seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances with our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive." \- Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth</comment>


Court Rules Copying Photos Found on Internet Is Fair Use - <AUTHOR> https://petapixel.com/2018/07/02/court-rules-copying-photos-found-on-internet-is-fair-use/ <comment><USER2> The title here is a little deceiving. The court just found that in this particular case, use of the photo met the factors that determine fair use.

</comment><comment><USER3> Title is pretty far off. It was found that regarding that case alone it was fair use for this one PHOTO (not photoS like the article notes).

Also the person using the photo took it down as soon as they found out it might be copyrighted so nobody got the all clear to use the photo long term here or anything.

</comment><comment><USER4> And it is not "photos" but just a "photo".

</comment><comment><USER5> This is an appeal if I've ever seen one.

<comment><USER6> Boy howdy!

\- It's used on a commercial site for non-commercial purposes? Anything used on a commercial site is arguably there to increase the site's financial value.

\- They didn't know it was copyrighted? Unless you see a notice of a CC license or such, that photograph was under copyright the moment the shutter was clicked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think it was a reasonable solution, the article's title is click-baitish in that the ruling was for a non-commercial use.

Also, the infringer swiftly complied with the takedown notice.

So, don't go around using non-attributed photos :)

<comment><USER8> Attribution is not really the issue. Don't use photos that you didn't take yourself, unless you have acquired permission to use them. I am moved to make this point because I have the impression that many people actually think that "giving credit" somehow immunizes them from damages for copyright infringement.

<comment><USER9> Some readers of this site think it is okay to use google image search, and then do whatever they please with the images they find. Photography copyright is very trivial for a lot of people not into photography. I compare it to China's policy of software copyrights: willful ignorance. Even when it is explained, it is ignored. I can't explain it to them, and I can't understand their stance either. I get frustrated, and have to let it be before it becomes hostile.</comment></comment></comment>